>> michael david pena, accepting on behalf of his father, master sergeant mike c. peña. >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to master sergeant mike c. peña, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry and entry bidty at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. master sergeant mike c. peña distinguished himselfs by acts of gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a member of company f, fifth cavalry regiment, first cavalry

division during combat operations against an armed enemy in korea on sepp 4, 1950. that evening under cover of darkness and a dreary mist, an enemy battalion moved to within a few yards of master sergeant peña's platoon. recognizing the enemy's approach, master sergeant peña and his men owned fire, but the enemy's sudden emergence and accurate point-blank fire forced the friendly troops to withdraw. master sergeant peña rapidly reorganized his men and led them in a counterattack which succeeded in regaining the positions they had just lost. he and his men quickly established a defensive perimeter and laid down devastating fire, but enemy troops continued to hurl themselves at the defenses in overwhelming numbers. realizing that their supply of ammunition would soon make their positions untenable, master sergeant peña covered his men's withdrawal. he single handlely -- handedly

held back the enemy until he was killed. master sergeant peña's extraordinary heroism and the selflessness at the cost of his own life beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> sergeant ashley randall, accepting on behalf of her grandfather, private domencio rivera. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to private domencio rivera, united

states army, for conspicuous ball an try can at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. private rivera distinguished himself by acts of gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an automatic rifleman with second platoon, company g, 7th infantry regiment, third infantry division during combat operations against an armed enemy in korea on may 23, 1951. early that morning a large hostile force emerged from a dense fog and viciously attacked privacy rivera and his comrades. private rivera immediately responded by firing with deadly accuracy until his weapon jammed. without hesitating, he threw his rifle down and began to engage the enemy with his pistol and tremendous fades. at one point private rivera fearlessly crawled from his enplacement to engage an enemy soldier in fierce hand-to-hand

combat. with only obscure shadows to guide his aim, private rivera held his vision against tremendous odds until he found himself without ammunition of any kind except one grenade. displaying a peerless fighting spirit and an utterly selfless devotion to duty, private rivera pulled the pin there his last grenade and calmly waited for the enemy the reach his position. as enemy troops leapt inside the bunker, private rivera activated the grenade with the full knowledge that it meant his almost certain death. when the debris had cleared, friendly forced recovered a severe hi wounded private rivera and discovered the bodies of four dead or dying soldiers around him. private rivera's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon be himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause]

>> mr. joe rodriguez, accepting on behalf of his uncle, private miguel a. vera. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to private miguel a. vera, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. private pi get a. vera distinguished himself by acts of gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an automatic rifleman with company f, 38th infantry regiment,

second infantry division the korea on september 22, 1952. that morning, despite suffering from wounds inflict inside a previous battle, private vera voluntarily left the aid station to join his comrades in an attack against well fortified enemy positions op a hill of great importance. when the assaulting elements had moved within 20 yards of the enemy positions, they were suddenly trapped by mortar, a artillery and small arms fired. private vera volunteered to remain behind to provide covering fire. be as his companions moved to safety, private vera remained steadfast in his position, directing accurate fire against the hostile positions despite the intense volume of fire which the enemy was concentrating upon him. later in the morning when the friendly force returned, they discovered private vera in the same position facing the enemy.

private vera's noble intre bidty and self-sacrifice saved many of his come raids' lives. private vera's extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> ms. nancy weinstein accepting on behalf of her husband, sergeant jack weinstein. the president of united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has

awarded this the name of congress the medal of honor to sergeant jack weinstein, united states army, for conspicuous ball an try and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. sergeant jack weinstein distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while leading first platoon, 21st infan friday rebelling item is in korea on october 19, 951. that afternoon 30 enemy troops counterattacked sergeant wipe stein's platoon. most of the platoon's members had been wounded in the previous action and withdrew under the heavy fire. sergeant weinstein, however, remained in his position and continued to fight off the onrushing enemy, killing at least six with his m-1 rifle before running out of ammunition. although under extremely heavy enmyrrh fire -- enemy fire, he continued fighting by throwing enemy hand tremendous fades

found lying near his position. he haltedded the enemy's progress and inflicted numerous casualties. alone and unaided, he held the ground which his platoon had fought to take and held out until another platoon was able to relieve him and drive back the enemy. sergeant weinstein's leg had been broken by an enemy yes said and old wounds had reopened, but he successfully bought time for his wounded comrades to reach friendly lines. sergeant weinstein's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> the korean conflict plaque

will now be unveiled inducting corporal baldonado, corporal espinosa is, sergeant gomez, private first class kravitz, or master sergeant mcgrown, master sergeant peña, private rivera, private vera and sergeant wipe stein into -- weinstein into the hall of heroes. [applause] >> general odierno will present the medal of honor flag to recipients from the world war for conflict -- world war ii conflict. they will then be inducted into the hall of heroes.

ms. do min georgia perez accepting on behalf of her father, private pais doe cano. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress mar 3, 1863,s has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to private pedro cano, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. private pedro cano distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving with company charlie, 8th infantry regiment, fourth unfan try division during combat operations against an armed enemy in germany on december 3, 1944. on the afternoon of the 2nd, american infantrymen launched an attack but were repulsed by enemy machine gunfire. armed with a rocket launcher,

the private crawled through a densely-mined area under heavy enemy fire and successfully reached a point within 10 yards of the nearest 'em placement. he quickly fired a rocket into the position, killing the two gunners and five supporting riflemen. without hesitating, he fired into a second position, killing two more gunners and proceeded to assault the position with hand grenades, killing several others and dispersing the rest. then when an adjacent company encountered heavy fire, the private crept to within 15 yards of the nearest enemy 'em placement and killed the two machine gunners with a rocket. with another round he killed two more gunners and destroyed a second gun. on the following day, his company renewed the attack and again encountered heavy machine gunfire. private cano again moved across fire-swept terrain and destroyed three enemy machine guns in succession, killing the six gunners. private cano's extraordinary

heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> ms. miriam addams accepting on behalf of her uncle, private joe gandera. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to private joe gandera, united

states army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. private joe gandera distinguished himself by act of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving with company delta, second battalion, 507th parachute infantry regiment, 17th airborne division during combat operations against an armed enemy in france on june 9, 1944. on that day private gandera's detachment came under devastating fire from strong german force, pinning the men to the ground for the period of four hours. private gandera voluntarily advanced alone toward the enemy position firing his machine gun from his hip as he moved forward. he destroyed three hostile machine guns before he was fatally wounded. private gandera's extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the

cost of his own life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> mr. alfonso lara, accepting on behalf of his brother, private first class salvadore j. lara. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded to the name of congress the medal of honor to private first class salvador j.

lara, united states army, for con spukous to gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. private first class salvador j. lara distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as the squad leader with second la toon, company lima, 180th infantry, 45th infantry division against an armed enemy in italy on may 7th and 28th, 1944. on the afternoon of the 27th, private first class lara aggressively led his rifle squad if neutralizing multiple enemy strong points and if inflicting large numbers of casualties on the enemy. having taken his initial objective, private first class lara noticed that the unit to his right was meeting stiff resistance from an enemy force in a deep ditch. private first class lara quickly gathered three men and attacked a wide section of the enemy

position killing four, forcing 15 orrs to surrender and causing two enemy mortar crews to abandon their weapons. his fearless and efficient performance enabled both his own unit and the unit to his right to continue to their objectives. the next morning as his company resumed the attack, private first class lara sustained a severe leg wound but did not stop to receive first aid. his company suffered heavy casualtieses as a result of withering machine gunfire coming from an enemy strong point on the right flank. after requesting per noise destroy the machine guns, armed only with a browning automatic rifle, private first class lara crawled alone toward the nearest machine gun. despite the extreme danger of the task, he rose and fearlessly charged the nest killing the crew members. another machine gun owned fire on them, but he quickly neutralized this weapon with accurate fire killing three more of the enemy. husband aggressive attack forced two other machine gun crew toss flee their weapons.

after rejoining his company, private first class lara continued his exemplary performance. private first class lara's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and united states army. [applause] >> ms. patricia kennedy accepting on behalf of her father, private first class william f. leonard. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863,

has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to sergeant william f. leonard, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. sergeant william f. leonard distinguished himself by act of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a squad leader this company charlie, 30th infantry regiment, third infantry division during combat operations against an armed enemy near france on november 7, 1944. sergeant leonard's ma toon was reduced to eight men as a result of blistering artillery, mortar, machine gun and rifle fire. sergeant leonard led the survivors in an assault over a hill covered by trees and shrubs which the enemy continuously swept with automatic weapons fire. ignoring bullets which pierced his back, sergeant leonard killed two snipers at ranges of

50 and 70 yards and engaged and destroyed a machine gun nest with grenades killing its two with-man crew. though momentarily stunned by an exploding shell, sergeant leonard relentlessly knocked out a second machine gun fest and capturing the roadblock objective. sergeant leonard's extraordinary heroism and selflessness are in keeping with highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> ms. alice mendoza, accepting on behalf of her husband, staff sergeant manuel v. mendoza.

the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to staff sergeant manuel v. mendoza, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. staff sergeant manuel v. mendoza distinguished himself by acts of gal anally and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a platoon sergeant with company bravo, 350th infantry, 88th infantry division during combat operations against an armed enemy in italy on october 4, 1944. that often the enemy launched a violent counterattack proceeded by a heavy mortar barrage. staff sergeant mendoza, already wounded this the arm and leg, grabbed a thompson submachine gun and ran to the crest of the hill where he saw productionly 200 enemy troops employing

flamethrower, machine pistol, rifles and hand grenades. staff sergeant mendoza immediately began to engage the enemy, touring five clips and killing ten enemy soldiers. of after exhausting his ammunition, he picked up a carbine and emptied its magazine at the enemy. by the this time, an enemy sldier had almost reached the crest. seeing that the enemy force continued to advance, staff sergeant mendoza jumped into a machine gun 'em placement and opened fire. unable to engage the entire enemy force, he picked up the machine gun and moved forward, saying a hail of bullets, causing them to break into confusion. he then set the machine gun on the ground and continued to fire until gun jammed. without hesitating, staff sergeant mendoza began throwing hand grenades at the enemy, causing them to flee. after the enemy had withdrawn,

he advanced down the forward slope of the hill, retrieved numerous enemy weapons scattered about the area, captured a wounded enemy soldier and returned to consolidate friendly positions with all available men. staff sergeant mendoza's gal ant stand resulted in 30 german soldiers killed and the successful defense of the hill. staff sergeant mendoza's extraordinary her lowism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause] >> mr. robert nietzel accepting

on behalf of his cousin, sergeant alfred b.nietzel. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to sergeant alfred b. nietzel, united states army, for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of husband life above and beyond the call of duty. sergeant alfred b. nietzel distinguished himself above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a section leader for company hotel, 16th infantry regiment, first infantry division during combat operations against an armed enemy in germany on november 18, 1944. that afternoon sergeant nietzel fought tenaciously to repel a vicious attack against his unit. he employed accurate, intense

fire from his machine gun and successfully slowed the hostile advance. however, the overwhelming enemy force continued to press forward. realizing he desperately needed reinforcements, sergeant nietzel ordered the three remaining members of his squad to return to the company command post and secure aid. he immediately turned his attention to covering their movement with his fire. after expending all of his machine gun ammunition, the sergeant began firing his rifle into the attacking ranks until he was killed by the explosion of an enemy grenade. sergeant nietzel's extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause]

>> dr. terry schwab, accepting on behalf of his father, first lieutenant donald k. schwab. the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to first lieutenant donald k. schwab, united states army, for con spukous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. first lieutenant donald k. schwab distinguished himself by acts of gal an try and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as the commander of company echo, 15th infantry regiment, third unfan try division during combat operations against an armeddenmy near france on september 17, 19444.

that afternoon as first lieutenant schwab led his company across 400 yards of exposed ground, an intense grazing burst of machine gun and machine pistol fire sprung forth without warning from a fringe of woods directly front of the american force. first lieutenant schwab quickly extricated his men from the attempted ambush. soon after he was ordered to overwhelm the enemy line. he rapidly organized his men into a schismish line and with indomitable courage, again led them forward into the fire. when halted a second time, first lieutenant schwab moved from man to map to supervise collection of the wounded and organize his company's withdrawal. he rallied his decimated force for a third charge on the hostile strong point and successfully worked his way to within 50 yards of the germans before odderring his men to hit the dirt. while fire bladessed around him, he rushed forward alone, firing

at the german foxhole, aiming for the vital machine pistol nest which had sparked the german resistance and caused heavy casualties among his men. silhouetted through the mist and rain by enemy flares, he charged to the german 'em placement, runed the half cover off the hostile firing pit, struck the general on his head and dragged him back through a hail of fire to friendly lines. first lieutenant schwab's actions so disorganized hostile infranty resistance that the enemy withdrew, abandoning their formidable defensive line. his extraordinarily hoerism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are this keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the united states army. [applause]

>> the world war ii conflict plaque will now be unveiled inducting private pedro peno, private joe gandara, private first class salvador j. lara, private first class william f. leonard, staff sergeant manuel v. mendoza, sergeant alfred b. nietzel and first lieutenant donald k. schwab into the hall of heroes. [applause] thank you, secretary hagel, secretary mchugh, general odierno and sergeant major of the army chandler.

ladies and gentlemen, please give a big round of applause for all of our valor 24 hall of heros inductees. [applause] >> and we have some live coverage to tell you about today coming up at 2:30 this afternoon. president obama will be at valencia college in orlando, florida, talking about women and the economy. that'll be live on c-span. and at 4 p.m. also on c-span, robert ford, former ambassador to syria, will be at the wilson center here in washington talking about the ongoing conflict in that country. and tonight on booktv in prime time, stories from recent history. starting at 8 p.m., it's sandra grimes and "circle of treason: the cia account of traitor aldridge ames and the men he brayed." nicholas given, pipping pong diplomacy and then at 9:50, lily

kappel, the astronaut wives' club. and that's all tonight starting at 8 eastern here on c-span2. >> today's young adults, the so-called millennial generation who are having a lot of trouble getting started in life because they've come of age in a very hostile economy, they are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance of getting when they themselves retire. so there needs to be a rebalancing of the social compact. it's a very important challenge, a very difficult challenge for this country politically because not only are social security and medicare half of our budge, or about to become half of our budget, but it is symbolically the purest statement in public policy that as a country we are a community all in in this together. these are, these are programs that affect everybody, and the old math of these programs

doesn't work. .. will preview the trip. the second panel will look at ukraine, trade talks, fallout from the snowden nsa leaks and a number of other issues.

the center for strategic and international studies is holding this meeting this morning. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. and welcome to csis. i'm reginald dale. i'm the director of the williamsburg c sis forum. which is a partnership between csis and colonial williamsburg foundation in association with the college of william and mary

and this, the panel that is we're going to hear this morning in fact constitute the concluding sessions of the second conference in the williamsburg csis forum. all the panelists here have been attending our discussions in williamsburg over the last three days on which we focused on the future of europe and various threats to it internal and external, and by internal i mean the growth of popular political movements in many of the countries. external is fairly obviously the russian move against ukraine which is all so much a military threat to the e.u. but a threat to its unity and its

institutions and ability to effective joint response to what has happened. this is the, as i say, the second conference in our series. we have one conference a year. the first one last year was on egypt. shortly after that there was a military intervention in egypt. this time the military intervention didn't even wait for our conference to begin and happened just a week before. i'm beginning to worry about this coincidence between our conferences and military interventions, i'm a little concerned what will happen when we hold our next conference next year on africa. the, these two panels will be moderated by heather conley, who is head of the europe program at

csis. i'm now just going to hand over to her the conduct of this concluding williamsburg session. >> reggie, thank you so much. i thank you all for joining us. i have to tell you if there's a nirvana for european analysts i've been in it the last several days to be surrounded by the people that i read, i listen to very closely to help me understand world events and they all came to williamsburg and we talked about the future of europe and we talked about the seismic events that occurred while we were discussing it. the annexation of crime crime by russia. so i can't begin to tell what you a pleasure and a delight it is i can share my nirvana with you this morning and we can

share three incredibly, thoughtful, insightful journalist who is have agreed to be with us today. we have gideon rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator and a weekly columnist for "the financial times." we have dr. joseph joffe, the editor of german weekly "die zeit". and all having journalistic careers. when the president does a visit overseas we do a briefing for the press and tell them what is important and what to look out for. we'll do that with csis scholars tomorrow morning. i thought there could be no better opportunity to talk about the president's trip to europe next week with roger gideon and joe to get their insights what they think is important. i'm sure when the white house was planning this trip very long

ago they had no idea that this trip would be this critical, this vital. i think they started out thinking yes, this third summit of the nuclear security summit an initiative president obama started this is part of a important legacy for him. he would visit brussels perhaps to buttress criticism that he has never been to brussels as president. he made eight trips to europe but never visited the capital of europe and so hitting that as well. then he is off to rome i think for to see pope francis but now to meet the new italian prime minister, prime minister renzi. then he is off to saudi arabia for even more difficult conversation and even more difficult bilateral relationship. but now the world has changed and so this trip has changed. so i thought what we would do is talk, have a conversation with gideon, roger and joe about, not

only what's at stake for this mission. i won't call it mission impossible but it will be a tough mission for the president, as he confronts this new challenge but i'd also love your take, the three, on really what the state state of the mood in . we had, this is the first time the president will travel after the full and devastating impact of the nsa revelations particularly the impact on the german revelations. we have in two months the european parliament elections which will perhaps change europe how democratically they speak to the future of the e.u. there are lots going on. i can't think of three people who i want to listen and their thoughts. with that we'll start with gideon and go to joe and roger weill:up. we'll a clean up here and welcome you into the conversation. with that, gideon. thank you, again. >> thank you, heather, for a very kind introduction perhaps excessively kind but i'll take

it. it was very nice of you and arranging the whole forum and it is a great time to be here in washington to figure out how the americans will react to this joint challenge that we now face after the crimea incursion and indeed annexation. i think we have one small thing to thank president putin for which is that he made what would have been a rather peculiarly timed trip into a very well-timed trip. it was peculiarly timed to have a u.s.-e.u. summit now was a bit strange because as heather mentioned, the whole of the european establishment is about to change. we'll have european parliamentary elections. the commission is going to be reshuffled over the summer. so the people obama is meeting won't be there in a couple months time. i realize that is typical kind of european wind. you said for years you haven't come to brussels, you haven't come to brussels and he comes to brussels and you're coming at

wrong time. he was sort of coming at the wrong time. now suddenly this is very relevant trip. the u.s.-ue -- e.u. summit is will have a g7 summit in the margins. the g7 is back. the g8 is no more. that will be an extremely important meeting. interestingly i saw originally president putin was expected to come to the nuclear summit and finds himself otherwise engaged. leader of china will be there. and it will be almost a mini u.n. happening in the hague after the ue-e.u. summit. let's backtrack briefly and look at the u.s.-european agenda. what will obama and the leaders be talking about? it won't be just the commission. you will get the leaders of the european nations meeting. some of the old agenda, most of it will survive although recast

in this new framework of the events that just happened in russia. i think one of the big questions is, will ptip, the effort to create a transatlantic free trade area, will it get a big boost because of what's happened in crimea? and theoretically one would imagine it would because it always had a kind of geostrategic or geopolitical rationale behind it. of course people want an extra economic boost after the kind of tough types we've been through on both sides of the atlantic but there was also a sense maybe we on both sides of the atlantic kind of have to rediscover each other and create a large block, oddly not vis-a-vis russia but vis-a-vis china. you heard from both american officials and european officials if the west were to have a chance to continue to shape the global economic agenda and free trade framework, perhaps it was no longer enough to be the e.u.

and the us. if we have a economic spin-off it would have political spin-offs. that political agenda has now been ramped up by what happened in russia. however i must say i'm skeptical i think you will see increase in the rhetoric how necessary it is. i don't see it enough to over come the entrenched obstacles which you have on both sides of atlantic. will harry reid suddenly say i will give obama fast track? i doubt it. maybe americans no better. will the french farmers or other protectionist groups in europe suddenly say, because of what happened in russia we drop our objections to this treaty? i don't think so. so there might be a little boost to it but politics and political concerns are pretty entrenched. so, i doubt we're going to get a huge surge in ttip. heather referred to the nsa and how we will get over that. everyone i suspect will tiptoe a little bit around the issue.

i don't think it is particularly in the americans interest to have a long, open discussion about it. i think the europeans having registered their disapproval don't want to turn this into an operatic larly now at this time. it has done damage to america's image as well as britain because we're complicit in the whole thing and germany where this issue was taken seriously and merkel's phone being bug. i would add, i think that one of the central tasks of facing american foreign policy and obama in particular, and even more important now, in the context of what is going on with russia is to rebuild the german-u.s. relationship. which is the key relationship. and is in much worse shape than i think people realize. the bit they have seen is the rau over the nsa and the stuff in the german papers and cite crosby her standards, statements by angela merkel.

i think even before that it was in disrepair because of a rau happened over syria where the germans, failed to sign a joint letter that the americans were putting together backing obama's position, about military action on syria but that provoked a really bitter rau between the principles in the white house and chancellery which i can tell has not been mended. the fact these people don't get on with each other or speak to each other regularly is a problem and has to be fixed i think, now more than ever because what germany decides to do on sanctions will be almost as important as what the u.s. tries to do. the germans, as well as being the largest economic power are also at one end of the european debates what to do about russia. they have always for economic

and political reasons, in another context we call constructive engagement with russia. they continue to have a big economic interests. not just pure, filthy lucre and dividends for energy companies. there are actually direct implications for the living standards of germans. 30% of their energy comes from russia. our colleague wolfgang who is with us, said to me in a conversation, if they don't get russian gas, germans will freeze because, we're going into the summer but this could be a long standoff. so it is really serious issue for merkel. so how the germans react will be very important. think one of the things that obama will swiftly discover, i'm sure he knows it already but he will see in person, there is as ever no single european position on this i think the europeans realize they have to be an effort at european unity.

and the germans in particular will very much want to try to stay on the same page as the poles who are, you know, obviously neighbors. the eastern end of the e.u. but they represent the people who are most alarmed by russians and most keen on a tough response. and the at beginning of this crisis you saw the polish and german foreign ministers together with france going to kiev together and i think people were very pleased with the symbolism of that because the two end of the european debate, the poles and the germans had a common position. whether that common position can survive this now much more prescient situation is going to be very important and i think the americans potentially can play a constructive role in trying to bring the sides together and to make sure that at least we don't display our divisions in public to the

russians because that of course can only encourage them. trying to think how the europe and u.s. will react to this. we know issues they will talk about, sanctions and so on. i think nobody has any appetite for military response. there will be some discussion about how tough you are and reiterating article five. whether you start moving military assets into the baltic states. whether you begin to offer the ukrainians something rather more substantial than a meal ready to eat as potential assistance. those issues will be very important. therethere will be this questio, what kind of sanctions and how can we make sure we all suffer equally because the, the odd thing about globalization or this economic relationship between developed with russia is

that it does differentiate from the situation in the cold where where there wasn't an economic relationship. there weren't huge russian banks with stakes in the city of london and so on. that's changed and it give us leverage over them but it also gives them leverage over us. we have to work out, are we prepared, we can certainly do them some damage economically but we in doing so would damage ourselves and how do we strike that balance and how much pain are we willing to take and so on? and also, we have to try and begin to think through the russian reaction because, you know, if putin is in full great patriotic war mode one thing we know about the russians is they can take a great deal of privation when they feel national interests are at stake. i don't think we can feel overconfident that these economic sanctions will with

russia in internationalistic mode will change course but we have to try to do something. i think a lot of the reaction of the europe and u.s. together will come down to personalities of leaders as it often does. i think it is potentially significant that the two most important leaders, obama and merkel, are both intrinsically quite people. you saw that in the libyan crisis when obama and merkel were both very reluctant to go for military intervention and that was driven by cameron and sarkozy and quite hotheaded. cameron despite his lange quid air he is faced with a crisis of somebody who wants to act. i think obama is somebody who wants to think. we'll know more about it but he seems slightly paradoxical at home. he seems quite paralyzed. overseas he has been quite activist with marley and so-and-so. he might be in the sort of

cameron we've got to do something camp. i think in the end obama and merkel are more important and their instincts just as human beings and leaders have been more intrinsically cautious. so i suspect we're going to get, we're not growing to get sort of churchillian, harry truman type speeches. we'll get something that looks to be firm and aims to avoid looking ridiculously weak and so on but that's not going to be tough something. i think a bit like, i don't know, some you probably heard scowcroft and bra brzezinski last night. they said we may not get there but keep some sort of space with russians and i suspect that is the ink tinge for the moment will prevail. this is moving situation. who knows what it will look like by the time obama arrives in europe, if there have been incidents and the russians are beginning to look greed i wily at eastern ukraine and the whole

situation is different once again. a final point. about how the russians might be reading this and how everybody has based. i think it is important that we look forward and not have a who lost crimea debate. very striking for me in your visits to the city to see that the shape of the u.s. debate about, well is this all consequence of obama's weakness and he was cautious over libya. that he, on syria obviously drew a red line and erased it. and that's an interesting debate but i think that, if my guess is that actually as much as thinking about america's reaction or lack of reaction or weakness or lack of weakness, president putin will have looked at european weakness. and, european reaction. after all, remember this started as a tussle with the european union over the fate of ukraine. and, a bit like stalin has meant

to have said to the pope, how many divisions does the pope have? how many divisions does the e.u. have? the e.u. doesn't really do military power. doesn't think in those terms. thinks of itself as a soft power. has nascent military ambitions and but very, very small stuff. just more generally what putin was facing as a european union that is incredibly internally focused. obsessed with the euro crisis. that is recovering barely from a very severe recession, a couple of these countries are still, deep, deep economic trouble. european union is facing european parliamentary elections where pop you is, far right, far left could get up to the 25% of the vote. this is not a european union really up for a confrontation with russia. it may have to gird itself and get there anyway but i think if i was sitting in moscow you would think these guys are shallow. they're internally divided. they're obsessed with their own

little problems. they're not thinking strategically. they're not really going to be a problem. around for the european union to overcome that, actually fairly accurate assessment and get its act together is going to be a really big challenge but not just for next week. but for the next couple of years and more. >> gideon. thank you so much. that was terrific. joe, i'm sure you have some thoughts on the u.s.-german relationship and the role that germany will play throughout this crisis. >> thank you, heather. i don't pretend to know what obama is going to say and do in europe but i, so i want make it easier for myself and just step back and describe the new stage where both he and the europeans are going to be operating and isolate to draw the contrast is to look back at 2008 and before

the election when obama had a real triumphant gig, and i mean gig, at the victory column in berlin. he drew 200,000 people which is probably, as much as free concert of the rolling stones would have gotten. from that, he bestowed the stage then as -- bestrode as a rock star and redeemer. footnote between him and angela merkel who had told him no, you can't do a reagan, you can't speak in front of the brandenburg gate. he had to move off half a mile to the columns. it didn't start off on a good foot between them. but putin as i tell you in a moment has done worse to merkel. he is the rock star and redeemer. as you know mortal redeemers never deliver what they promise some disappointment was about to

set in very quickly and if you say go into the pew charitable trust figures you see that approval rates for obama began to decline pretty quickly after the, down by double digits in all of europe and the middle east by the way. so why, what, but there's, so how do we explain the decline? of course frustrated expectations. earthly redeemers don't redeem but europeans didn't like a few other things like the drone, drone violence which up compared to the bush administration. and of course more recently the

nsa snooping in europe. europeans conveniently forget the brits in gshq and french with doing exactly the same thing although on somewhat smaller scale but the brits being in a much better position than the nsa because they set astride eight transatlantic cables which all end up in london. so nsa snooping, disappointment in somebody who couldn't possibly deliver but people expected him and i think most importantly perhaps was a sense of, hey, this guy, this guy treats us differently than previous american presidents. previous american presidents had spats with them, big spats but never were we faced with a kind of indifference obama seeps to

exude and indifference of course became more concrete in these, like rebalancing pivot, europe. it has no longer a problem. we have to play the next power game in asia. so this was kind of a, of course, where america actually did pivot to not so much towards china the pacific and middle east and you know all the syria and iran and only to buoy with this. this was the stage until two, three weeks ago. now the new stage is really quite interesting because it, it displays two pretty interesting watersheds in the affairs of nations. and the european-american alliance. what surprises me is two things.

first, first time there was the american superpower no longer taking the lead as it had done the last 70 years. and so the action kind of fell upon others, notably, notably on germany. and that is the second surprise because that is not the game plan for germany. hasn't been for the last 50, 60 years. it was happy in its cocoon of alliance integration and not happy, indeed loathe to take a strategic role. i will take this, germans moved to center stage because they're so strong but mainly because the others at this point, are so weak. think about france. and libya -- takes lead in bombing. you don't hear much from paris these days. the brits, who for decades

faithful american lieutenants, always buy its side. what do they do? they vote in the commons not to get engaged in syria. which kind of pulled the rug under obama but i think he was happy to have the rug pulled out from under him because he was pretty leery to actually use force in syria. so, here is that first watershed, the surprise about how the old prayers shaped up and showed up in a new way. the second watershed, we've been talking about, everybody has been talking about the last two, three weeks, what you might recall the return of history. the return of the kind of history which dominated the first part of the 20th and 19th and 18th century.

power politics. zero sum games. he constant readiness to use force for all the great players. and, surprise, surprise, after 70 years or so this was the first time borders were changed or by violence after the verdict of world war ii. lots of borders of course had been changed by violence. two water sheds and surprises. if this is the return ever history as i just outlined. it is turning out, what does the stage look like? look at the two key players i must mentioned. they share similarities though they are far apart in size,

economy and so on. i would submit that neither germany nor the u.s. is very comfortable with its role. why so? well the u.s., has been in reaction mode. obama's america has been in retraction mode. i don't have to go through the details except to stress one key engine of retraction which is this offrepeated phrase by the president, time for a little nation-building at home. i think he said it about a dozen times in speeches. retraction in a way, final victory of george mcgovern and his campaign slogan, come home america. plus of course the opinion figures in this country which tell us pretty much, pretty clearly, we've had it with all this war stuff.

iraq, iraq, afghanistan. enormous application of force, enormous expenditure but not much to show forfeit we look at what the middle east is doing. so suddenly the united states is being dragged back into a game in europe it thought it could safely abandon. the germans, unlike the germ mans of the 20th century are not exactly pushing on to center stage. they found out that, they didn't do very well in 20th century trying to grab germany and a -- more misery. they're not kind of rushing in like a latter day william the ii. they have been kind of dragged into it like the united states is being dragged into it. so, you know, hacks like us, we

always have to come up with a nice little phrase to amuse or, not to lose our readers so i will do this one. i will call them, i call both of them the two great garbled powers. a bit older and know the movie cannon, may remember greta garbo and her famous line, i want to be alone. and she had her huge sun grasses on. -- sun glass glass. there is a greta garbo here. i want to be aloan. expressed by mitt romney when obama chided romney, hey, man, haven't you figured out, haven't you realized the cold war is over? well the cold war is back but it is not a cold war in a classic sense but idealogical dimension is missing. now the germans totally abandoned the strategic role in the last two generations.

and they kind of saw themselves, what they call a civilian power and one that is lodged in the heart of the e.u. called the empire of peace. we don't do war. we do all kind of other stuff. we trade, we give aid, we help people build democratic institutions. we're diplomats. we're intermediaries. we don't do war. and so but you know, this is, this is kind of the situation. i mean this is the mind-set with which these two key players bestrode the stage. strategy by hard power is back. zero sum games are back. zero sum games meaning your gain is my loss. and both of them are facing an

opponent who i think is probably the most brilliant strategist on the global stage today. this is no czar nicholas i who got russia into crimean war in the 1850s and sustained enormous losses. he was impulsive and vain. this guy is not impulsive and not vain. he is very smart. he knows an opportunity when he sees one. boy it was hard to resist this opportunity. my turf. i have some historical claim to it. the west is far away. the balance of interests is on my side. local power is on my side. it's, it was perfect. notice i'm not making any moral judgments. i'm just giving you like a theater critique. somebody turned out to be a brilliant, brilliant actor. minimum force, maximum gain and

even better, the man has by doing so gained what we call street credit. why is street cred important? once you establish a reputation for the willingness and ability to use force and to be ruthless about it, you don't have to use force and conquer next time. you just establish a reputation as a nasty bastard and so people will, you don't have to wield power in order to have it. so he may stop here because he has now so much intimidated the ukraine that the ukraine will do his bidding. however, if he goes, if he goes farther, i don't think we're going to do much about it either, because again, it is our periphery but his century. he is close. he is got the determination. he has got the street cred.

how in the end will the game unfold? one, i don't think we'll use military force. i'm pretty sure, to dislodge, to dislodge putin. to dislodge somebody is a hello of hell of a lot more dangerous than to slip in when nobody is looking. too much risk. so both the u.s. and germany will use civilian incursion. you know what it is like. kick them out of the g8. travel bans. freeze bank accounts. the e.u. is now extending again an association agreement to, to the ukraine. and we'll do a number of demonstrations of military power. demonstrations, not use of military power, on the eastern edge of nato to reassure poles

and baltics. the problem with this is that the time frames don't match. i mean putin has grabbed the crimea and he will now consolidate. these civilian sanctions outlined will take a long time to, to achieve its goal. it doesn't, you can't redirect gas flows overnight. you can't redirect frayed flows overnight. and if you look longer into the future it take as while to reverse what is true for the entire west which is long-term decline of defense spending. those chickens have finally come to roost in the united states too. take the great power of germany which spend 24% of gdp and much less than the brits. much less than the french and certainly a lot less than the united states.

>> joe, you want to wind up real fast. >> i'm be almost done. so what are we doing here? we're looking at a, maybe there is a new cold war but minus the idealogical component. certainly putin has won the first round and may win the second round if he goes to the eastern ukraine. and, because the ukraine is more important to him than is to us and i think we're not, we really do not, we find it very hard to reverse some of the trends that, that i mentioned. but if this game persists you can't just let the other guy play the game. we wily nilly have to restart playing the old game of power politics again. >> thank you so much, joe. roger. >> thank you very much, heather.

i must say nirvana for european analysts had been pretty high on my list of oxymorons before you suggested that. it might actually exist in reality. so i'm grateful to you for that. i'm not sure i can add a whole lot after those two brilliant exogesiss from gideon and joe. but this is a very important trip to he europe, much more important than it would have been a couple months back. brussels is not, brussels is a rather anodine dateline. it is not zare sarajevo, it is not paris or berlin. but think the moment has come despite the dateline for some powerful symbolism. i think the body language will

be almost as important as anything to demonstrate that, the transatlantic unity is not just some quaint idea from the 20th century but he is still there. and still matters. let's face it. president putin has acted because he is perceived the european union as weak and, president obama, the united states in general, as distracted, looking elsewhere, pivoting to asia. winding down on the post-9/11 wars in a phrase of retrenchment. and that is the basis on which he has acted. and i don't think we can have any illusions any longer about him. i think we were inclined to think he really thinks the breakup of the soviet union was one of the great, the greatest strategic tragedy of the

20th century and it was such a almost farcical statement that we waved it away. but the fact is if you look at the invasion of georgia in 2008 as a kind of a trial run for this, as his whole perception of the post-cold war humiliation of russia, the need to recreate, if you like, the soviet space, there is coherence, there's a plan as joe just said. there's a strategic mind at work. and he means what he says. and he cares about it. and if the language he understands is force and i think, unless there is a strong response and a united response above all from the united states and europe together to this and a reassertion of the importance of the transatlantic alliance and of nato, then we could be

heading in a very worrying direction. if you look at putin's speech it's really worth reading for anybody in the room who hasn't yet read the whole thing. it's very clear the way he's thinking. he talks no only of the grab for crimea that, unjust way in which crimea was taken away from russia but he talks repeatedly of eastern ukraine and southeastern ukraine in exactly the same language. so it is far from impossible that crimea will have a sequel and i think we need to be very realistic and clear about that. clearly we're not move and the president has said it, we're not moving in the direction of the use of military force but certainly ukraine has requested communications equipment, intelligence-sharing assistance.

other materiel and i think they should get it. i think we should make that clear. as joe said, we should underscore the importance of article v, the fact that is a solemn commitment to the baltic states and make that very, very clear. i think there was a powerful piece in my newspaper today about the possibility of, these second-tier lieutenant who is were targeted in these sanctions that really was, that combined with meals ready to eat, that just does not cut it, ladies and gentlemen. and i think the lang width -- languid leg crossing by the white house throughout this crisis that doesn't cut it either. this guy doesn't cross his legs in the kremlin. he just doesn't. we need, we need a sense of resolve. this doesn't mean we're hurt telling to war. as soon as you say something like that, people, a lot of

people these days immediately, you know, start talking about iraq and afghanistan and these have been long and extremely burdensome wars that have marked the united states and will for many years to come. but, u.s. resolve matters in world affairs. u.s. red lines matter. and i hope that we will get from this visit, a series of coordinated, my sense of germany is, you know, germany acts with caution and germany is hesitant about leading for obvious reasons but there is real shock and indignation in germany. this is real. it goes from chancellor merkel on down. i mean germany thought it had a relationship with russia wherein it could use its influence to prevent this kind of thing and you know, it did not happen.

so i think there is resolve. these two leaders as gideon said are cautious but i think, i think both have a sense that this is a watershed moment. this is pivotal moment. there hasn't been an annexation in europe since world war ii. the german for that is ancelus we know what happened then. the situation is combustible. i think the best way to make it less combustible is not through weakness but through resolve, cali greated resolve, intelligent resolve but sill that resolve that is to be there. i will be brief because we don't have a whole lot of time. i would like to say a couple of words about the germ man-american relationship which i think is, is absolutely key and i think is in the worst condition i've seen it in for a very long time. it goes down from the leaders. joe alluded to the unhappy beginning with chancellor

merkel. you're just a candidate. you can't hold a rally at the brandenburg gate. this did not go down well with the president or his aides. ever since there have been problems. there were huge problems over syria as gideon pointed out. history means that privacy as central and cardinal value in german society that may be hard for americans to understand and as a result, the whole nsa scandal has had an impact in germany unlike elsewhere. so i think there's a, a lot of work to be done in trying to repair that german-american relationship. i think foreign minister steinmeyer has had some interesting ideas. he has talked about the fact that, you know, while the atlantic alliance may resonate for people of our generation, we

have to think about how german youth -- snowden is much more popular among german youth i would submit than president obama today. i mean obama was a rock star in 2008. if there is a rock star in germany today, it is edward snowden. and that is a serious state of affairs, ladies and gentlemen. and it needs addressing. stein meyer has proposed a kind after cybersecurity summit or conference or dialogue and i think more than ttip or these far off ideas we need something in the nearer term that really addresses these issues. because young people in europe need reminding of what, of what the transatlantic -- the most successful at liance in human history. what it has achieved, what it means and why it's important in light of what president putin has done today. has done of late.

there needs to be finally, i think, some real focus on just helping ukraine out right now. the country is in financial chaos. and there needs, there needs to be a program of assistance and it needs to be coherent. and for that the united states and europe must work together. john kornblum who is sitting right here, reminded me of a breakfast that when the president went to berlin last year he made a speech in which he mentioned the european union not once, not once. and you know, this is noted and so there's a lot of work to be done, not only in redressing the

u.s.-eu relationship but this whole sense that the united states under the obama administration simply lost interest to a large degree in europe. the president did the dutiful minimum. he did what was dergere and he didn't do more than that i think we're seeing part of the price today of that, i think, somewhat foolhardy disregard for this pivotal alliance in global affairs. thank you. >> all transatlantics said, amen. we have, about 20 minutes or so before a coffee break for some good questions. let me throw out a few. then we'd like to open this up, if it is okay with the panel, why don't we gather some questions an we'll let you sort of have a final round and closing comments. we keep focusing naturally on the role of leadership here and

you've just heard a very sobering assessment of the likely bandwidth politically, economically, for that leadership. so my question is, sometimes the moment makes the leader. they don't come to it willingly. can we foresee that this is a moment where the transatlantic leadership will come forward? i've been very impressed by chancellor merkel's statements, but again, we can do the rhetoric. that part we do fairly well and have done fairly well so far. we're very, not good at the implementation part. i think the weakness of what we are, you know, actions speak louder than words. in some way ways mr. putin's actions are louder than his words although his words are very loud as well. i would like you, can this be a moment? what does the president have to say in brussels. he is planning a major speech which i'm sure now has been rewritten and will be rewritten

on the plane there. so question one, what does the president have to say, what does europe have to say to move, to have this message of transatlantic unity? nato, nato is six months out, less than six months out from a summit on september 4th and 5th. prior to this nato was searching for its new purpose afghan began and wasn't finding it very quickly. secretary-general rasmussen was here. he was in washington. gave a speech yesterday. again, a very tough speech. does this repurpose nato? in some ways, putin i think, this is all about nato in some ways. this is all about nato getting too close to russia. there is lot of commentary. we've caused crimea. we've caused crimea. we've done this. we pushed too far. we pushed too close to his interests. how does nato have to respond to this? and we're also going to select a new secretary-general of nato. what does that individual need

to do? those are some thoughts for you to consider. and now please, colleagues, if you have a question, raise your hand. please identify yourself. speak very loudly in that microphone. because sometimes it's a little hard to hear. keep the questions short so we can get a few in. we're start here, carolyn, with mike. thank you. >> mike musetta, pbs online news hour. do you think these events will fores the e.u. into more strategic thinking? in washington their lack of strategic thinking in kissinger's columns and scowcroft's comments yesterday, the e.u. is a pinata to bash on. if not full strategic thinking, will it at least increase communications which are formally nonexistent at the moment between two organizations that sit in the same city, e.u. and nato?

>> great. we'll stay in this cluster. was there another hand raised? yes, sir. >> american university and transatlantic academy. actually myself posed the question to mr. rasmussen yesterday about the, about nato finding a new role in the world and he said that nato has no new role in the world. it doesn't have to reinvent itself in the 21st century as it did at the end of the cold war. i certainly agree with mr. cohen on the fact that the u.s. has to show to the european publics the vitality of the transatlantic relationship, particularly to the younger generation like myself who has come to a world where we take it as a precondition, we take it as something for granted. but back to ukraine, i think, that it seems that the ukraine crisis illustrates a crisis of the transatlantic relationship because i think that e.u.

underestimated the attractiveness of its own model while on the other hand the u.s. got very late wake-up call. had the e.u. put membership on the table we could have a -- of this -- averted this crisis i think. yesterday, mr. rasmussen called the defense summit something remarkable, defense summit in december. personally i think it was a remarkable failure. as we're heading towards the nato summit in wales and nato is electing a new secretary-general do you believe it is time to have a serious dialogue, a transatlantic dialogue when it comes to security and defense? and that we need truly strategic relationship between nato, the e.u. and the u.s.? and rethink the relationship between these institutions in based on a pragmatic understanding of the european

security and essentially don't you believe it is i am pertive the e.u. develop as new security strategy followed the failed and ineffective security strategy, outdated security strategy of 2003? thank you. >> great, thank you. i'm going to, let's sigh wheel take a colleague here. >> thank you. as it was said, it is clear that putin has a strategy and he has a vision and this vision is very clear and strategy is very simple. he wants to extend his empire based on the force. brutality basically. it's there. my question and, welcome meant, i don't know, is that what is it that europe and the united states are proposing to this vision? all we hear today is talking about sanctions and i don't think talk about sanctions is

the vision. it is kind of reaction. it is okay, you're a bad guy. now we're pogue to cut the whatever, freeze bank account of unenr important people. if it was important people it would still be the reaction. what this u.s. european summit should being exactly about this vision. whether europe is ready to extend the borders of free world as opposed to empire world that putin is proposing to that part of the world. is the ready to extend its borders what it is beyond today. my question to the panel whether, what do you think whether europe and united states are ready for this extension? or enlargement is announced and parts of that positive vision we are looking forward from that part of the world where i come from? otherwise again what we're looking today is leader of one nation with a very clear vision, with a very strong strategic

plan, moving ahead, year by year, picking up the piece that is he lost after that big political tragedy as he called it and there is no vision from the other side. and obviously not question just for this year's summit but it is happening right now. the statement you would expect today but also it is for the nato summit obviously. thank you. . .

>> this far and to further, no fur. and when i hear mr. cohen talk about article v, i really don't need to hear anything else but that word, article v. are we prepared to defend article v far and no further? >> thanks, terry. we have two, three questions here, so one in the back and then one there and there. and then we'll wrap it up. >> thank you. my name's -- [inaudible] vietnamese-americans. would this be an opportunity for the u.s. and e.u. and nato to work to expand the energy market for the u.s. so the u.s. can help to establish oil and gas through ukraine and help to supply the e.u., especially

germany and britain, great britain, with oil and gas? that way we show that we supporting our allies, and we also show to russia that it's only weapon, energy to the e. u., is now being shaken if it doesn't shape up its own actions if thank you. >> stanley kober. we've said that there has been no forcible change of boundaries in europe since the second world war, and that's true. but there was in asia. the vietnam war. north vietnam sent practically its entire army south and conquered south vietnam, incorporated into united vietnam. we have reconciled with vietnam. we now recognize it, presidents have visited. what are the lessons of the vietnam war that would apply today?

>> thank you. [inaudible] united american diaspora. mr. cohen said perfectly, i think, the trial run in 2008 with georgia, i think the bucharest summit where we needed to make clear on enlargement we failed. in ukraine i think we're seeing the mistakes with georgia and hopefully those are not happen with macedonia. but i do want to know last month 40 members of congress sent a letter to kerry urging clear support for integration for macedonia, a partnership for peace with kosovo. where do you see the u.s. position on this in light of the nato summit? will we see a clear decision on nato end largement? -- enlargement? >> well, panelists, that was a wonderful array of questions. so i think, gideon, if you're ready, i think we'll just work our way down the line. >> okay. well, lots of questions, i'll try and answer as many of them

as i can. on the question that was asked -- [inaudible] does nato need a new role, i guess they're beginning to look at their new role as their old role. it comes back to the question of how do you deal with russia. nato enlargement, i think people will be very cautious about that in the current mood because we're suddenly realizing, we are focusing on exactly what article v means. are you prepared to -- in the end, you have to fight for these countries, and you have to ask yourself, are you prepared to do that? i think that they will -- my guess is they won't rush to expand nato in the current mood. be things get much worse -- if things get much worse, then maybe there'll be a sense that that is a step that has to be taken, but i don't think it's high up the agenda right now. the question of the e.u.'s strategic failures, and you said that it's fashionable to bash

the e.u. here which puts me in an unaccustomed position of trail trying to defend -- actually trying to defend the e.u. i think there's a misunderstanding of what the e.u.'s all about. to see it simply as a kind of geostrategic player, actually, for most people merchandise the e.u. that are operating or citizens of the e.u.; that's fairly low down the list of what the european union's about. it's common markets, an area of free movement of people, and it's a currency area. its goals traditionally have been cupid of economic and social. -- kind of economic and social. the strategic aspect is relatively new and not to really been thought through, you're correct about that. and i'm not sure that we necessarily want to now -- one thing the europeans are really good at is spending years on agonized debates about the purpose of the union. i'm not sure now is necessarily the time to have a debate about the e.u.'s strategic purpose.

i think they toe is -- nato is an institution that exists and that works and really that, i think, is the institution that's going to have to do the strategic thinking about how to deal with this, with the kind of military aspects and the strategic aspects of all this. the question of e.u. enlargement to ukraine is felt, i know here, as to the massive missed opportunity by the european union. why didn't they do this years ago? viewed from european capitals, the answers are quite, you know, simpler, that there was very little appetite for further enlargement amongst the populations of the european union after the last enlargement that the, what's actually involved in incorporating a country into the e.u. is massively complicated, and it's a process of many, many years. so i can see what the scowcroft and the kingennier -- kissinger's are getting at, but

it is more complicated than it seems from this side of the atlantic. energy and gas, i think that's going to be very important, and i think that could be one very positive thing about this crisis if it gets the americans to kind of resolve the debates about the exports of the clear energy bonanza in the u.s. that would be good news i think, actually, for measuring as well, but also certainly for the your boons. and just a last concern europeans and just a last thought on, you know, this theme that's underlied a lot of what we've been talking about, that putin has play 3 a fantastic hand and we've been, you know, hopeless and don't really know what we're doing. i mean, i think it's too early to say this is a master stroke on the part of putin. i mean, it seems to me if you look back at the history of the last 20, 30 years, one of the lessons is that countries that use military force generally it looks quite good the day after or the month after, it often

doesn't work out too well. so for russia going into afghanistan in 1979 was arguably the death knell of the soviet union. i'm not sure that the interventions in hungary/czechoslovakia look so great in the light of history. he may get away with crimea in the sense that there's an element -- it's a strongly pro-russian area, so you may not get an insurgency. if he goes into eastern ukraine, i think that would be a disaster for russia in the long term even though it might look strong in the short term. and even for us as we think about our responses to this kind of thing, you know, obama's not wrong to think, actually, american military interhavingses in recent years -- interventions in recent years haven't worked out so well and perhaps one should think about other responses before you start rushing to put on your military fatigues. and so i think that, as i say, that he who uses force in the

modern world, it's kind of a certain are the row thrill, but it doesn't actually work out that well generally. >> great. roger, we'll just walk down the line. >> thank you. well, on nato i have colleagues on the op to ed page -- op-ed page who have argued this view that is a great mistake after the end of the cold or war or was extending nato eastward. this gave russia a sense of being corner ld, and here we are. my view is more or less exactly the opposite. i think it's the greatest achievement of the post-cold war years was precisely extending the protection and security of both nato and the e.u. to these nations that had been enslaved within the soviet empire. and i think what we're witnessing today is how much tore sight and diplomatic -- foresight and diplomatic

brilliance was shown in achieving that. if lithuania, latvia, estonia to name the most prominent examples and perhaps the most threatened nations by putin's vision of a reconstituted soviet space, if they were not within these organizations, they would be eminently at risk. and the if there's any -- if there's any sense left, sir, of this far but no further, it is precisely in article v of the north atlantic treaty alliance. and i still believe in it, you know? i think -- i don't believe the united states will renege on that commitment. that is a treaty commitment, and whatever the retrenchment, whatever the wavering, whatever the araised red lines, that is a

treaty commitment. i believe it's credible to has cow, and i believe the fact -- to moscow, and i believe the fact that it is in place toddy minishes the risks of this combustible situation escalating. i don't think we should allow any veto from moscow on the extension of the e.u. or nato to other nations further east, and i think it's the moment to make that clear. that doesn't mean that these things can be accomplished overnight, and they won't be. but personally, i'm in favor of leaving the door open because i believe that history shows us that that's the way you lock in peace, rule of law, security, values to which many people on the face of this earth are deeply attached.

yeah, the pinata of the e.u., you know, that's what it is to many people. in europe too, you know? e.u. bashing is a great british sport and not only a great british sport -- and the e.u. has had enormous problems as everybody knows over the last few years. nevertheless, i think countries want to get into the e.u., and it's not for nothing. serbia and kosovo have resolved their difficulties having been at war recently. why is that? because they both want to get into the e.u., and they know what they have to do to get there. so, you know, e.u. communications are weak. the e.u.'s efforts to build its image and to have a global image that reflects its actual

importance, weight and achievement -- and we've just been talking about this, is there a european narrative. americans know what they celebrate on july 4th. what do europeans celebrate? how can we revive this remarkable but amorphous thing? and i think those are issues going forward. just finally on the -- and by the way, macedonia, you know, what i said about leaving the door open, certainly, that applies to macedonia. there was a question about the vietnam war. well, nations and relations do repair themselves over time, and we've certainly seen that with vietnam. we also know that the cost of that war and the tens of thousands of american dead and the imprint of it on the more than consciousness -- on the american consciousness is indelible and, i believe, in perhaps a little more of a minor

key the experience of the iraq and afghan wars on the american psyche and consciousness will also be indelible. so we don't want to get into wars. wars are terrible things. we're speaking here on the centennial of the outbreak of world war i. but i think if the postwar decades tell us anything, it's that the way to avoid wars is through resolve. it's not simply through folding and weakness. >> thank you, roger. that's great. joe, you have three minutes to bring us home. >> i'll pick two questions, one about nato and one about cuba. cuba is a very interesting analogy. first of all, nato doesn't act. it's governments that act. just like in the crisis it wasn't the e.u., it wasn't nato,

it was various foreign min structures -- ministers that did. and in the past it was, obviously, the united states that acted. and if i had my druthers, i would, i would ask, suggest to mr. obama to do a repivot. go back to the central arena and do what president john f. kennedy did in '61 when he was challenged by khrushchev. he was a young man, i'm going to teach him fear. and and one of his responses was put, i think, 30,000 fresh american troops into europe. but again, nato and the e.u. don't act, and this is a nice little story which has the advance of being true, the foreign policy representative was asked henry kissinger asked 40 years ago what's the phone number of the e.u.? she says we have a phone number, it's mine.

dial the phone number, and then you get the computer and it says for germany, press one, for france, press two. of. [laughter] so the repivot is one word i would use. cue what is -- cuba is interesting because it was the reverse. it was when the soviet union challenged the united states on its turf. with the balance of strategic power, the balance of regional power and the balance of enters was clearly on the side of the -- of interest was cleary on the side of the united states. you don't want to challenge the other guy on your periphery. you want him to have to dislodge you from your center or which is what putin has done with the crimea. that's why it's going to be very difficult to dislodge. now, in the long run, yes, i think in the long run history favors us. russia is what soviet union was,

an extraction economy with nuclear weapons whose fate depends on the price of energy. the reason why the gorbachev soviet union went down was that the price of energy suddenly hit the same real level as before the '73 oil crisis. so that's on our side. putin has taken a giant leap backward from the global markets, from investment, from exchange, from technology transfer. not good for the economy. empire's costly. the mess -- you have to pay a lot to clean up the mess that is both the eastern ukraine and if he grabs it and the crimea. and, you know, within five or ten years there will be oil and be gas coming from the unite, but don't think that -- from the united states, but don't think that's going to start flowing today. there may even be gas from the israeli fields in the mediterranean, but that's kind of medium-run consolation.

the nice thing about history being on our side -- which i kind of believe -- is that if history's on our side, we don't have to do anything. we just let history come to fruition. the problem with policy today and tomorrow is that the time frames don't quite mesh. so i come back to the beginning. coalitions don't organize themselves. there has to be an organizer, there has to be somebody who assumes the cost, and that's why i demand from mr. obama, mr. obama, stop this pivot bullshit. come back to europe. [laughter] i don't think he will. [laughter] >> i like two words, resolve and repivot. i like it. please join me in thanks our panel u.s.es for a -- in thanking our panelists for a wonderful discussion. [applause]

now, don't go away, we have more coming. take a quick coffee break. the coffee is behind you. we will reconvene in 15 minutes exactly for a broader discussion of the future of the european union. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> this forum hosted by the center for strategic and international studies is taking a 15 minute break. we'll resume live coverage when it gets under way. in the meantime, the associated press is reporting russia faces further sanctions from the european union today over its annexation of the crimean peninsula. an address to the german parliament in berlin, chancellor

angela merkel said the e.u. was readying further sanctions and the unite forum of -- g8 forum had been suspended indefinitely. russia holds the presidency, and president vladimir putin was with set to host the conference in june. some live events at 2:30 eastern, president obama will be at valencia college in old, florida, talking about women and the economy. that'll be live on c-span. we are learning that president obama's planning to deliver a speech on the situation in ukraine this morning scheduled to start at 11 eastern from the south lawn. c-span will have live coverage. and then at 4, also on c-span, robert ford, former ambassador to syria, will be at the woodrow wilson center here in washington talking about the ongoing conflict in that country. again, that's at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. well, yesterday the day after russia annexed crimea from ukraine, anders rasmussen who was referred to several times

this morning called it the greatest threat to european security since the cold war. in remarks at the brookings institution, he also called on nato countries to increase their contributions to the alliance. during this break, we will show a portion of his speech from yesterday. >> ladies and gentlemen, we live in a different world than we did less than a month ago. rush that's military aggression in ukraine is in blatant bridge of its international commitments, and it is a violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. the annexation of crimea through a so-called referendum held at gunpoint is illegal and illegitimate. and it undermines all efforts to

find a peaceful political solution. this is a wake-up call for the euro-atlantic community, for nato and for all those committed to a europe whole, free and at peace. we know that we cannot take our security for granted. we have seen other crisis in europe in the past decades, the western balkans in the 1990s, georgia in 2008, but this is the gravest threat to european security and stability since the end of the cold war. first because of its scale with one of the largest movement of troops for many decades, second

because of the stakes, the freedom of 45 million people and their right to make their own choice and, third, because this crisis is right on nato's border. but ukraine cannot be viewed in isolation, and this crisis is not just about ukraine. we see what could be called 21st century revisionism. attempts to turn back the clock, to draw new dividing lines on our map, to monopolize markets, subdue populations, rewrite or simply run up the

international -- rip up the international rulebook and to use force to solve problems rather than the international mechanisms that we have spent decades to bulled. to build. we had thought that such behavior had been confined to history. but it's back, and it's dangerous because it violates international norms of accepted behavior. it exports unstability -- unstability, it reduces the presidential to cooperate and build trust, and ultimately it undermines our security. not just nato's or ukraine's security, but also russia's.

if the rules don't apply, be agreements are not honored, certainly russia also stands to suffer the consequences. russia was among those who committed in 1994 to respect ukraine easter to have y'all integrity -- ukraine easter to have y'all integrity and sovereignty. russia pledged not to threaten or use forcedness ukraine -- or use force against ukraine. by turning its back on that agreement, russia has called into question its credibility and reliability as an international actor. and its steps to annex crimea

are a clear violation of the united nations charter. russia must honor its international commitments, cease all military activities against ukraine and seek a peaceful political solution. including through dialect dialogue with the government of ukraine because on its current course rush that is choosing -- russia is choosing increased international isolation. there are no quick and easy ways to stand up to global bullies. because our democracies debate, deliberate and consider the options before taking decisions.

because we value transparency and seek legitimacy for our choices. and because we see force as the last, not the first, resort. the only way to address such challenges is for europe and north america to stand together. this is what we have done from the start of this crisis. nato's clear position has been to condemn russia's military actions in ukraine, to stand firmly in support of the government in kiev and to make clear that president putin's decisions to escalate the situation have consequences. as a first step, we have

suspended joint planning for a maritime court mission for the destruction of syria's chemical weapons. this would have been the first joint operation of the nato/russia council. we also decided that no staff-level, civilian or military meetings with russia will take place for now. and we have put the entire range of nato/russia corporation under review. nato foreign ministers will take decision when they meet in brussels early next month. at the same time, we have kept the door open for political dialogue in the they toe/russia -- nato/russia council to give russia an opportunity to engage. we have also taken measures to strengthen nato's readiness. they include more assets for our

baltic air policing mission, surveillance flights over poland and romania and heightened awareness. allies have taken further steps to impose diplomat you can and economic consequences -- diplomatic and economic consequences. these are not our preferred choice, they are inevitable and appropriate consequences of russia's choices. no one wants to turn away from our cooperation with russia. but no one can ignore that russia has violated the very principles upon which that cooperation is built. so business as usual is not an

option. ladies and gentlemen, in times like this when the security of the euro-atlantic area is challenged, the north atlantic alliance has not wavered, and it will not waver. for 65 years we have been clear if our commitment finish in our commitment to one another as allies and to the global security system within which nato is rooted. our transatlantic foundation is our strength, and it has given us the ability to consult, cooperate and cope with any crisis. this does not mean that they toe is the only -- that nato is